Minnesota North Stars Rebrand Petition

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, hawk36 said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with honoring past players who starred in an old city. Especially when all the games those players played for the team were in the old city. That's why a shared history is probably the best. Let the franchise honor the player but let the old city honor the player as their own too.

"Shared" history doesn't really work.

 

The NHL actually hit the perfect compromise when the league returned to Winnipeg. The Jets 2.0 actually acknowledge the Thrashers' history. The team's All-Time Roster, Draft History, and Season Recaps pages all reflect their history as the Atlanta Thrashers. The historical records of the original Winnipeg Jets team remain with the Arizona Coyotes.

Does that stop the current Jets from honouring the old Jets though? Not really. The team honours the history of the first Jets team without trying to co-opt its history. The record books belong to the Coyotes. As they should. That doesn't mean the new Jets can't have Teemu Selanne night though.

[slapshot]

Minnesota North Stars, 1967-1993, 26 seasons

Dallas Stars, 1993-2016, 22 seasons

 

The ship has sailed.

[hawk36]

39 minutes ago, slapshot said:

Minnesota North Stars, 1967-1993, 26 seasons

Dallas Stars, 1993-2016, 22 seasons

That's exactly right. Two separate things.

 

I see it as a marriage. Let's consider a husband and a wife who get divorced. If the husband remarries, his new wife doesn't get to claim all the things the husband and his previous wife did/went/saw. And likewise, the ex-wife doesn't have to disown all she and her ex-husband did/went/saw. Both keep their history and memories. 

[Cosmic]

34 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

That's exactly right. Two separate things.

 

I see it as a marriage. Let's consider a husband and a wife who get divorced. If the husband remarries, his new wife doesn't get to claim all the things the husband and his previous wife did/went/saw. And likewise, the ex-wife doesn't have to disown all she and her ex-husband did/went/saw. Both keep their history and memories. 

Sure, but when the wife moves out, the husband doesn't get to tell her: "You didn't go on that vacation to Greece with me... I went there with my next wife that I haven't met yet!"

[dont care]

8 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

That's exactly right. Two separate things.

 

I see it as a marriage. Let's consider a husband and a wife who get divorced. If the husband remarries, his new wife doesn't get to claim all the things the husband and his previous wife did/went/saw. And likewise, the ex-wife doesn't have to disown all she and her ex-husband did/went/saw. Both keep their history and memories. 

That is honestly a rediculous argument and comparison. It's still the same team, just in a different location. They are the ones who earned those accomplishments, them moving doesn't take them away, they still bring them with them. This isn't about what the cities (wife's) can claim, this is what the teams (husbands) can claim. The wild (the new husband) can't claim the stars history just because some fans can't get over the stars leaving 22 years later

[hawk36]

Incorrect. It's quite solid.

 

The Wild (new husband) is with Minnesota (first wife). She (Minnesota) has half the history of the Minnesota North Stars.

 

 

[Cosmic]

I think there is some sharing between the city and the team, but it 95% stays with the team.  It's part of city history, but you need to make sure you stop before you pretend it's part of the new team's history.  If I'm married to a woman that earns a PhD, how much of that degree belongs to me?  I might have helped her study, and I threw her a party afterwards, but she did the work.  

[dont care]

41 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Incorrect. It's quite solid.

 

The Wild (new husband) is with Minnesota (first wife). She (Minnesota) has half the history of the Minnesota North Stars.

 

 

She can have the memories, but not the history, that belongs with the team, it was their accomplishments.

[chcarlson23]

5 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

The Wild can perhaps honor him.  (And Modano, as mentioned above).  The Timberwolves have a banner for MPLS Lakers in the Hall of Fame; but there is no claim that they and the Wolves are one in the same.  Somewhere in the arena, displays honoring "Minnesota NHL History" can share stories of Modano, Dino, Broten, Goldsworthy, the Stanley Cup Finals appearances, etc.  But it is either the Wild players or the Stars players that are on the franchise all-time stats list with them; not both.  I'd prefer it be the Stars players for the reasons some of us have discussed a bunch.

The Wild do have a few walls at the X with info about the North Stars and the Fighting Saints, but they definitely need more about hockey history in Minnesota. 

 

5 hours ago, MC Buffalo said:

So should the Minnesota Wild hang Mike Modano in the rafters? (his number of course, not Mike himself).

doesn't make sense. Even though Minnesotans loved him when he started his career there. He has nothing to do with the Wild and it just seems like it would be out of place and even a little disrespectful to a guy like Mikko who has toiled for so long for the Wild.

No, Modano shouldn't have his number retired, because he only played in Minnesota for a few years. (Not to mention a lot of Minnesotans hate him now ) He played most of his career on Dallas, and the Stars retiring his number was the right thing to do. Who knows? Maybe Modano would have been a huge bust if the Stars stayed in Minnesota. 

 

Also toiled? He's the franchise Leader in a lot of things. I wouldn't say toiled, ESPECIALLY if I was a Buffalo Sabres fan... 

[M4One]

People really need to let it go.  That horse is not only dead, but it's been sent to the glue factory, processed, and is now being used by kindergarten kids to stick macaroni onto paper or something like that.

 

Seriously, Dallas, is not going to be giving up the name any time soon.  They sure aren't going to do it because of an online petition.  Second, Dallas has actually won a Stanley Cup as the Stars while Minnesota had a couple of Finals appearance, otherwise, not much else.  And, in a few years, the Stars will have been in Dallas longer than they were in Minnesota.  

 

The Jets are different in that the Coyotes didn't keep the name, though kept their records, allowing the Jets to retake the name, though not the history.  Same with the Avalanche, if the Nordiques ever come back.  Neither requires the team to change their names simply because some fans can't get over it.  

 

The Minnesota Wild have been wildly successful off the ice since day 1 and have been pretty good on the ice the last couple of years.  Embrace it and forget this return to the North Stars nonsense.  And the thing is, the North Stars abandoned Minnesota for Dallas!  Why yearn for the return of the name of the team that ditched your city?

[jujubeans]

5 hours ago, hockey week said:

 

White: Green shoulder yokes with logos, lace-ups, two-tone collar, green hemline stripe, green stripe on each sleeve, two stripes on hemline, two stripes on sleeves

 

The greens are a bit more of a stretch, but in a league devoid of green jerseys, they look pretty similar. 

 

The team that moved from Minnesota, where green is associated with NHL hockey, has a similar shade of green to the current Minnesota team? No :censored:!

[Morgan33]

6 hours ago, hockey week said:

We're almost there now

 

We're not talking about identities that are too far off. They certainly look like family to me. 

 

That comparison underlines how much of a masterstroke "victory green" was.  The Dallas Stars have never looked more like their precursor team which, as the graphic below illustrates, is wholly appropriate.  I'd like to see them take it even further and add athletic gold.

 

[wildwing64]

9 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I see it as a marriage. Let's consider a husband and a wife who get divorced. If the husband remarries, his new wife doesn't get to claim all the things the husband and his previous wife did/went/saw. And likewise, the ex-wife doesn't have to disown all she and her ex-husband did/went/saw. Both keep their history and memories. 

 

This analogy is silly, so I'm going to tell my own version of it to reflect what actually happened.

 

The husband (Minnesota) and the wife (Stars franchise) were happily married for several years, and they even had a few kids (franchise records, players, etc). However, towards the later years of their marriage the husband was being neglectful of his family and ended up cheating on his wife for a younger girl he was flirting with instead (the Gophers). The wife filed for divorce, and took her kids with her to Dallas (new husband) who happily adopted his new stepchildren as his own. The ex-husband in Minnesota eventually married a new wife (the Wild), and now both families occasionally appear on the Jerry Springer show.

[dont care]

5 hours ago, wildwing64 said:

 

This analogy is silly, so I'm going to tell my own version of it to reflect what actually happened.

 

The husband (Minnesota) and the wife (Stars franchise) were happily married for several years, and they even had a few kids (franchise records, players, etc). However, towards the later years of their marriage the husband was being neglectful of his family and ended up cheating on his wife for a younger girl he was flirting with instead (the Gophers). The wife filed for divorce, and took her kids with her to Dallas (new husband) who happily adopted his new stepchildren as his own. The ex-husband in Minnesota eventually married a new wife (the Wild), and now both families occasionally appear on the Jerry Springer show.

The wife also got a PH.D. with the the new husband while receiving a bachelors and and masters with the older one

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

17 hours ago, smzimbabwe said:

I'm of the opinion that a franchise history is the franchise history and no matter how you try to change it, you can't change history. The Oklahoma City franchise won the NBA title in 1979 while playing in Seattle, and no amount of revisionism can change that fact. If the Washington Nationals choose to honor the old Expos, that's their business, but as far as I am concerned, Gary Carter, Tim Raines, etc. played for the Washington Nationals franchise while it was located elsewhere. Whether the NFL recognizes it or not, Jim Brown played for the Baltimore Ravens franchise while it was located in Cleveland. Special allowances and league recognition doesn't matter, history is history.

 

Exactly. I hate this revisionist history that the NFL and NBA are doing with the Browns and Hornets.

 

The Cleveland Browns football club was born in 1946 in the AAFC. In 1950 they jumped to the NFL. In 1996 they were transferred to Baltimore and became the Baltimore Ravens football club.

 

Today's Cleveland Browns football club was a brand new entity that was created as an expansion team in 1999 and stocked through an expansion draft.

 

The Charlotte Hornets basketball club was born as an expansion team in 1988. They were transferred to New Orleans in 2002 and became the New Orleans Hornets basketball club (now called the Pelicans)

 

Today's Charlotte Hornets were born as a brand new entity. A 2004 expansion team originally called the Charlotte Bobcats basketball club. They were built through an expansion draft. Just because they use the old name now doesn't mean they are the same entity.

[OnWis97]

On 4/20/2016 at 11:07 AM, The Giant Pacific Octopus said:

 

Exactly. I hate this revisionist history that the NFL and NBA are doing with the Browns and Hornets.

 

The Cleveland Browns football club was born in 1946 in the AAFC. In 1950 they jumped to the NFL. In 1996 they were transferred to Baltimore and became the Baltimore Ravens football club.

 

Today's Cleveland Browns football club was a brand new entity that was created as an expansion team in 1999 and stocked through an expansion draft.

 

The Charlotte Hornets basketball club was born as an expansion team in 1988. They were transferred to New Orleans in 2002 and became the New Orleans Hornets basketball club (now called the Pelicans)

 

Today's Charlotte Hornets were born as a brand new entity. A 2004 expansion team originally called the Charlotte Bobcats basketball club. They were built through an expansion draft. Just because they use the old name now doesn't mean they are the same entity.

I agree that this is how it should be.

 

Officially, it's not true.  And most people on this board prefer the Cleveland Deal to what you and I consider reality.  There's a bit more discomfort with the retroactive nature of the Hornets mess, but still the board is probably 50/50.  So you can bet casual fans are on board with Sports History White-Out.  

 

Any other franchise (all the other NFL/NBA relocations and the full history of NHL/MLB) has reflected what actually happened.  Yeah, 5 or so NBA titles were won in my state of Minnesota.  I don't want the Timberwolves to claim those.  Sure, Minnesota has 7 titles (2 Twins; 5 Lakers).  I have no problem saying that.  But the franchise residing in LA won those titles.  And the Dallas Stars did not take away a single pre-1993 memory of the North Stars.  I had a blast during the improbable Stanley Cup Final run of 1991.  But that did not happen to the Wild; no matter how much you want to pretend it did.  

 

The Thunder/Sonics example is very, very simple.  Yes, that title was won in Seattle. Those old enough to remember it can enjoy that memory. Yes, those in OKC probably don't care.  But to retroactively attach that to a future Seattle team is disingenuous.  That team did not win that title.  History does show the title was won in Seattle but the "new" Sonics have no linage to that team.  This would be especially tragic if a team like the Kings, T-Wolves, or Bucks moves to Seattle.  Then an entire franchise is considered defunct just to play make believe.  Sure, none of those franchises have great histories.  But neither did East Germany.  We don't pretend it never existed.

 

Unfortunately, though, the NFL and NBA have made it official that these are the same entities.  It's up to us interested in the history to do the mental gymnastics.  And this is going to be the new normal.  Thank goodness the Rams moved back to a place they'd already been or it would be happening again.

 

Thanks to the NHL for not doing this with the Jets.  Winnipeg fans wanted the name.  They got the name.  History remains accurate in Phoenix, Winnipeg, and Atlanta.  And we are not forced to believe that, yeah, Atlanta used to have an NHL franchise, 1972-1980, took some time off, and then 1999-2011; now defunct.

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

24 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Officially, it's not true. 

 

I don't care about official. I care about facts and truth.

 

The Toronto Maple Leafs claim they were born in 1917 and were called the Arenas during their inaugural season.

 

Fact is they were born in 1912 and were called the Blue Shirts their inaugural season in the NHL.

 

There was even a book published by the Hockey Information Services in tandem with the HHOF that goes into detail about how the team was never called the Arenas in the 1917/18 season.

 

And in Morey Holzman's great book Deceptions and Doublecross How the NHL Conquered Hockey

 

He goes into detail about how Eddie Livingstone leased his Toronto Blue Shirts to the Arena Gardens company for the NHL's inaugural 1917/18 season, and after they reconfigured the team into a new team called the Toronto Arenas in December 1918, sued them. He was successful in that the courts ruled the Arenas entity had belonged to him and the Arena Gardens were forced to pay a huge sum of money that they couldn't afford and went bankrupt as a result. The league then seized the dormant team and sold them to Charles Querrie who re-branded them the St.Pats in 1919.

 

So despite a lease deal and a lawsuit through the courts that document the connection between n the Blue Shirts and Arenas, the Leafs and the league officially don't recognize it.

 

I say Phooey on revisionist, rewritten and altered history.

[ICTknight]

So I guess that I am more case by case than what I said in my other post. I'll just go through some examples.

The Cleveland Browns deal is what i think usually should happen.

The north stars and Dallas are the same franchise. The wild arent trying to go to their 3rd stanley cup finals.

I do think Winnipeg should have gotten their history back from Phoenix and left their Thrasher history in Atlanta. 

I do not count the Twins as having 3 world series, only 2. I would combine the 2 Washington Senators histories but not put them with the Washintgon Nationals. Just because you move into a city doesnt mean you get all of its history. It would be a different story if the Nats had called themselves the Senators back in 05. Then I would give them the 1924 title to them.

[dont care]

Why would you give a title to a team that never earned it? Just because a team moves somewhere and decided to take a previous teams name doesn't make them the same team. That's what I hate about revisionist history, you are striping titles and accomplishments from teams that earned them and just deciding to give them to someone else because you can't get over that the other team left and want to pretend the new team is now the same team. They aren't plain and simple.

[hawk36]

16 hours ago, dont care said:

She can have the memories, but not the history, that belongs with the team, it was their accomplishments.

I guess I just feel the city/fans play a more vital part in a team (more so than any other corporations). 50/50.